[Onquest]

I was at the park yesterday and got to taking totally impromptu pictures of kids trick riding on their Razors (scooters). We were all having a good time and the kids were hamming it up for me. I took some decent pics. Is it appropriate to put these pics on my website and allow the parents to purchase them? None of the parents were there at the time so I have no model releases and of course no net working, except I did hand out a few business cards.
Can ya tell I'm new to all this?

[m&m]

seriously? I wouldn't even be asking this if I were you. If one of the parents were to sue you, you just admitted in a public forum to have been taking shots of their kid without their consent. Creepy. In a sue happy society you should be careful and always only shoot pictures with a model release. Going to a playground and shooting pictures of kids is like getting a ticket to jail. I wouldn't toy with the idea of ever posting those anywhere.

[photobuggie]

You can take photos of people in public areas even children although I wouldn't recommend snapping away at young children. Someone might think you are a child molester. But you should not post them on your website for sale without a release from the parents. The problem isn't the taking of the photos. The problem is publicly displaying the photos for sale....photos that the parents don't even know were taken.

[BAILA]

I wouldn't even offer the photographs for free. I think most parents would be horrified if they found out some stranger (assuming you are a stranger??) was snapping pictures of their children with out permission.

[cloudnine]

Pretty much what m&m , photobuggie , and baila said.

Even though you technically can legally take the pictures( but like buggie said there are limits as to what you legally do with them without a model release) , don't photograph children without a parent's request or permission. No good can come of it.

[photobuggie]

Like that old saying...just because you can...doesn't mean you should.

[Onquest]

m&m, on 01 April 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

seriously? I wouldn't even be asking this if I were you. If one of the parents were to sue you, you just admitted in a public forum to have been taking shots of their kid without their consent. Creepy. In a sue happy society you should be careful and always only shoot pictures with a model release. Going to a playground and shooting pictures of kids is like getting a ticket to jail. I wouldn't toy with the idea of ever posting those anywhere.

Not quite that creepy, M&M. There was fundraising "Burritto Breakfast" going on at the park with various booths selling crafts and whatnot. Half the town was there and the skate park is part of the main venue. No one was stalking kids, lol. I see where you're going with this, though, and that angle never occurred to me.

[cort]

How is this different from photographers shooting sports games and other events then putting photos up for sale to parents? Photographers often do this without anyone's permission.

What about our rights as photographers? When we stop shooting in places where we have a legal right to then it will not be long before we start for forfeiting the right to shoot in those places.

As a parent if you have a problem with this then you need to make sure your children don't go to places where they could legally be photographed.

[m&m]

Onquest, on 02 April 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Not quite that creepy, M&M. There was fundraising "Burritto Breakfast" going on at the park with various booths selling crafts and whatnot. Half the town was there and the skate park is part of the main venue. No one was stalking kids, lol. I see where you're going with this, though, and that angle never occurred to me.

Of course I hope you weren't stalking kids.....but it could be hard in court explaining to a mad parent that it wasn't the case....after all you didn't ask about taking pictures of kids.

[m&m]

cort, on 03 April 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

How is this different from photographers shooting sports games and other events then putting photos up for sale to parents? Photographers often do this without anyone's permission.

What about our rights as photographers? When we stop shooting in places where we have a legal right to then it will not be long before we start for forfeiting the right to shoot in those places.

As a parent if you have a problem with this then you need to make sure your children don't go to places where they could legally be photographed.

Sports games and events usually have a group release available by the institution organizing the event. Another words the parents signed something for the team saying there might be pictures taken of their kids during these events by various individuals or photographers. It is also different when a parent is taking pictures, compared to a non-parent for profit person trying to take pictures without permission of the parent, as in USA the child cannot think for themselves until they are 18(some never) and can therefore be easily taken advantage of. Some leagues will make you pay a photographer fee, because they assume you are making money from taking pictures at the games.

You don't have the right as a photographer to take images and offer them for sale of minors in USA without the aproval of their parent or guardian. It is actually pretty simple. If you are taking the images without consent, then offering them for sale, then you are not working legally. Really simple solution is to get a permit or license. If this was a charity event, then I would have asked the organizers of the event to provide me with permission, on paper, to taking pictures at the event. That way it would be the organizers needing to explain anything to the parents if that situation was to come up. It could be as simple as including a statement on a sign by the entrance, saying that all entering are subject to the event rules and regulations. (which then can somewhere include a statement saying that photographs of minors can be taken without further questions).

As a business owner I don't think it is that much hassle compared to jeopardizing your entire business and reputation. Most events organizers will sign off on something like that without any fee being paid. You just cannot be careful enough in our society, and losing your business because of a foolish mistake would suck! Simple.

[cloudnine]

What M&M said , exactly.

Technically , you are allowed to publish a person's image without their permission if it is a newsworthy event , and published as just that..news. Otherwise paparazzi and photojournalists would be out of jobs . However , just taking someone's picture then putting it for sale is something you legally can not do without a model release that says so.

Besides , if your goal is to grow your BUSINESS which is what OP's original question pertained to , you will not endear yourself to the local parents by being the person photographing their kids without their permission and then offering them for sale . What you can legally do and what is GOOD for your business are not always one in the same.

From a legal aspect , it would not be illegal to take the children's pictures , but it would be illegal to just put them up in a public gallery and offer them for sale . Granted , there is a gray area here since you could say the OP was at a newsworthy event ..therefore if he publishes some shots in the local paper and the kids happen to be in it and the caption says " local kids at play at the Breakfast Burrito in so and so park" , that would be legal.

AND , even though it would be legal to print the pictures in the local newspaper as a newsworthy event , the majority of papers/mags will want to further cover their butts and will ask a photographer for a release from the parents ANYWAY , even though it is not needed.

I just did a big spread for this month's Tapout magazine and I had to get releases galore on paper. And they were not for sale , they were just being published as a how to tutorial for MMA .

It sounds like OPs intentions were good , he just asked for guidance on how to proceed from a " how to grow my business " perspective, and for the most part I think he got good advice .

[Weaver-Photo]

First off, I want to say that 99% of the comments in this thread are what is wrong with America today. (Cort, your comment is the only one of reason.)

m&m, on 03 April 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

You don't have the right as a photographer to take images and offer them for sale of minors in USA without the aproval of their parent or guardian.

Show me the statutes against this. Go ahead. I'll wait.

No, I won't, becasue you can't find it. There are law protecting the use of one's likeness, but not a single one that restricts you as a photographer from taking and yes, selling those photos. Only in certain commercial uses is a model release a good idea. Notice I didn't say required.

m&m, on 03 April 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

It is actually pretty simple. If you are taking the images without consent, then offering them for sale, then you are not working legally.

Better round up all the photojournalists then. Because they must be operating illegally.

For example, the above mentioned photos could be sold to the local paper or city magazine for inclusion in an article about the fundraiser and there isn't a blessed thing anyone can do about it. Editorial use. Yet the images were sold.

And yes, you can be sued for anything. I could sue for spreading bad advice and harming the reputation of photographers everywhere. Doesn't mean it will stick.

Learn your business people. Not by listening to what you hear others (and mothers) say. Do the research. Get releases when you can because you never know when someone might want to buy and use your images for a commercial purpose. But don't become paralized and avoid shooting just because you can't always get one.

[m&m]

Weaver-Photo, on 03 April 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

First off, I want to say that 99% of the comments in this thread are what is wrong with America today. (Cort, your comment is the only one of reason.)



Show me the statutes against this. Go ahead. I'll wait.

No, I won't, becasue you can't find it. There are law protecting the use of one's likeness, but not a single one that restricts you as a photographer from taking and yes, selling those photos. Only in certain commercial uses is a model release a good idea. Notice I didn't say required.



Better round up all the photojournalists then. Because they must be operating illegally.

For example, the above mentioned photos could be sold to the local paper or city magazine for inclusion in an article about the fundraiser and there isn't a blessed thing anyone can do about it. Editorial use. Yet the images were sold.

And yes, you can be sued for anything. I could sue for spreading bad advice and harming the reputation of photographers everywhere. Doesn't mean it will stick.

Learn your business people. Not by listening to what you hear others (and mothers) say. Do the research. Get releases when you can because you never know when someone might want to buy and use your images for a commercial purpose. But don't become paralized and avoid shooting just because you can't always get one.

Ok, go ahead take your chances. I find it easier to be covered beforehand. Taking random pictures of kids is a touchy subject and what is wrong with America, is the disrespect for privacy.
Asking for a permission is a standard process and shows business ethics as well. Really wouldn't have harmed the op to ask the event organizer for a permission to do work and conduct his business at the event, and in the long run that permission could save a lot of hassle. I am not saying it is always possible to obtain, but one should at least try. As far as court, even if you would win against a tripping parent, the publicity it will create is not the advertising you want. But yeah taking chance on something like that sounds like something a starting business should avoid.


I am not a lawyer however I am pretty sure the ppa advised me years ago that you may take pictures of kids at public, but the moment you offer them for sale, you need the release. Sorry, I don't have a statute for ya on it, but I wouldn't encourage anyone to try to find the hard way that it is the case.

[photobuggie]

cort, on 03 April 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

How is this different from photographers shooting sports games and other events then putting photos up for sale to parents? Photographers often do this without anyone's permission.

What about our rights as photographers? When we stop shooting in places where we have a legal right to then it will not be long before we start for forfeiting the right to shoot in those places.

As a parent if you have a problem with this then you need to make sure your children don't go to places where they could legally be photographed.

As I said above, it is not illegal to photograph people in public areas including children. It isn't illegal to sell the photos. However, the OP wanted to display the photos on her/his website. You cannot use a person's photo for advertising/marketing/promotional purposes without a written release. Displaying a child's photo on a website is using the photo for advertising/marketing/promotional purposes.

Sponsors of sporting events retain official photographers. The sponsor of the event has the legal right to prohibit photography of all kinds or to permit photography and to retain an official photographer. Youth teams are consenting to the sponsor's right to retain photographers and to use the photos. It is not comparable to a stray photographer wandering around the streets snapping away at children.

More importantly, the OP was speaking about business promotion. Obviously the OP was intending to use these photos for promotion which cannot be legally done without the parent's written release.

Just as important as the legalities, parents are not experts in photography law. Many, many parents think no one has the right to photograph their child without their consent. Parents tend to get rather upset when they discover that some unknown photographer was hanging around their child snapping away and posting the photos on the internet. It is not good business practice to get a bunch of parents outraged threatening legal action and possibly contacting the police or spreading rumors that the photographer must be some kind of pervert. Parents tend to be very suspicious about someone hanging around a children's play area and taking photos.

There is no upside to this potential legal battle so why not use common sense and avoid it. I don't see how this would be positive promotion for a photographer.

[cloudnine]

http://www.usatoday....hy-rights_x.htm

There are no restrictions on what you can photograph in public..there are restrictions on what you are allowed to do with the images.

http://www.usatoday....hy-rights_x.htm

http://www.usatoday....mera-laws_x.htm

And section 652d point b
http://cyber.law.har...ts_Sections.htm

You can't publish it unless it is of legitimate concern to the public ..i.e like I said in my post it has to be newsworthy.

You will not find statutes specifically mentioning photography .. they all fall under privacy statutes.

I'm not trying to debate , I'm just sharing what I learned in photography school pertaining to photography and the law.

Again , as it was mentioned here , you are legally free to photograph these children. You are not legally free to do whatever you want with the image , however.

Gray area for OP since it was a public Burrito event ..but not a gray area IMO from a business standpoint. They are better ways to get a good reputation with the local parents , which is what OPs initial concern was.

[m&m]

Thanks cloud nine for finding those links...... Sometimes people tend to bash those who try to help..

[cloudnine]

As an afterthought to the OP , if you really like these images and want to showcase them to get some interest in your skills , the safe way to do it would be to email the editors of a few local local papers and offer your images for print to go with an article pertaining to that particular event , or maybe an article pertaining to the great skatepark the town has... they often ask for releases even though they don't legally need them , but if you really want these images to be seen , publishing them as news or public interest is the way to do it legally.

[cloudnine]

I actually meant to highlight this

� 652C Appropriation of Name or Likeness
One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy.

Comments:
a. The interest protected by the rule stated in this Section is the interest of the individual in the exclusive use of his own identity, in so far as it is represented by his name or likeness, and in so far as the use may be of benefit to him or to others. Although the protection of his personal feelings against mental distress is an important factor leading to a recognition of the rule, the right created by it is in the nature of a property right, for the exercise of which an exclusive license may be given to a third person, which will entitle the licensee to maintain an action to protect it.
b. How invaded. The common form of invasion of privacy under the rule here stated is the appropriation and use of the plaintiff's name or likeness to advertise the defendant's business or product, or for some similar commercial purpose. Apart from statute, however, the rule stated is not limited to commercial appropriation. It applies also when the defendant makes use of the plaintiff's name or likeness for his own purposes and benefit, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a pecuniary one. Statutes in some states have, however, limited the liability to commercial uses of the name or likeness.

From this :
http://cyber.law.har...ts_Sections.htm

[cort]

m&m, on 03 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Taking random pictures of kids is a touchy subject and what is wrong with America, is the disrespect for privacy.

Seriously, there is absolutely no expectation of privacy at a public event in a public place. The problem from my point of view is too many people go ballistic at the slightest perceived issue, everyone is touchy about every thing. If people just got over it there would be fewer problems.

[m&m]

cort, on 03 April 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

Seriously, there is absolutely no expectation of privacy at a public event in a public place. The problem from my point of view is too many people go ballistic at the slightest perceived issue, everyone is touchy about every thing. If people just got over it there would be fewer problems.

You are right, the problem however arises when the pictures are posted, as is what the OP was thinking of doing. My point is, why as a business (starting for that matter), would you take any chances on that subject, knowing "too many people go ballistic at the slightest perceived issue." I guarantee you people go ballistic over much less in a controlled studio setting, so why take chances like this and jeoperdize business growth?